If we assume that your claim that a lot of people have not actually been infected by SARS-CoV-2 or one of its many scariants which is driving the increase in infections among the vaxxed and boosted to the hilt crowd, then ...
It could be that the excess mortality is a result of those people, especially the older ones dying from those infections. After all, even rhinoviruses can kill older people and those with a weak immune system.
How would we determine whether any excess mortality is a result of SARS-CoV-2's spike protein (and it's many scariants) or as a result of the enormous numbers of Spike proteins caused by the #ClotShot or because they watched too much TV about how dangerous the scariants are and just up and died suddenly?
Am I understanding this correctly. What you are suggesting is that the effect may well be that large numbers of the vaccinated had not actually been exposed to whatever scariant of concern they were looking at prior to being vaccinated, and so the effect could simply be that they did not have immunity.
I do not know if I have ever had any of the scariants because I have never bothered being tested and I have never had the ClotShots either.
The Peters "Died Suddenly" feels like controlled opposition with an attempt at Google washing the results. Ha
The MSM avoiding the topic while scientists are desperately (sub or consciously) trying to cover their asses by finding an excuse (long covid) that reduce their shame in pushing these untested products on 5 billion people.
I seem to rememeber in 2020, all strokes, clots, and heart attacks were all covid related. Haven't looked back at that Fear Porn data but that was my first "ohhhh wait a minute moment."
So the reason the MSM has been pushing so many explanations for these sudden deaths and health issues other than long covid, being it looks bad for the vaccines that were supposed to stop infection, then at least reduce symtpoms, and final Hail Mary of reducing Long Covid?
Even living in what appears to be a Post Modernist hellscape with "truth teams", blaming Long Covid (which has yet to be defined, has overlap with vaccine injuries, probably related to that pesky spike protein factory called your internal organs) seems like what the Blue Team? would be using as cover, but doesnt appear to be what is being done from keeping an eye on the MSM garbage. Maybe this is a product of Big Pharma advertising dollars or they are just waiting for the "Long Covid vaccine"? Pfizer has that new heart tissue repair mrna vaccine coming out.......
I admit I dont follow the Long Covid studies. Maybe its just my take on the world, but studies relating to pharmaceutical products tend to get their funding from sources with incentives to get results that paint their industry in the best light. They have their conclusions, just gotta design that study. If it doesnt work out, bury it.
My friend works for DOD contractor who won a bid proposal to use machine learning with a prepared NIH dataset. They were told to design a model that will show the covid vaccines reduce long covid. The company with the best model that shows less long covid with the vaccinated, will win more funding and continue the project.
Some people will never believe these vaccines are dangerous and a terrible idea no matter what studies are published.
Demanding receipts is good. People will still be told not to believe their lying eyes.
Sorry Brian! After 3 years, I am experiencing peak skepticism.
Hmm....after reading so many of your Substacks, "Statistics Lie" and all that....I wonder why even bother with this? Just seem to be explaining away results of anything and everything.
As for "Everything is catch up effect", out of all the people I know and have discussed this with (lets say 100 people),
I can name maybe 3 people who didnt already have covid before their initial booster. They mostly likely had covid before but didnt test (many of my vaccinated friends in 2021 believed they couldn't get covid so no need to test) or had been hiding in their homes and had no children.
Max anecdote is friend with 5 doses and had covid 4 times.
I've been reading and analyzing your recent "catch-up effect" posts. Based upon the studies you've analyzed and the arguments you've made, I'm convinced of what you're saying (by in large). However, it does seem that the vaccines do have some sort of "negative efficacy," especially among the boostered. And the evidence for that is my anecdotal observations: the vaccinated (many of whom previously had Covid) are the ones who got really sick during these past few variant waves over the past few months; whereas the unvaccinated have been fine (worse case scenario: scratchy throat or slight congestion).
In other words, there is no "catch-up effect" going on with the vaccinated I know: not only did Covid already get them, it got them a second (or third) time. What is more, the severity of their subsequent infection was worse than the first time.
In short, your "catch-up effect" theory/model makes sense and is likely to be valid. Yet, it's not comporting with what I'm seeing in my circles.
How can anyone take a study seriously that still does the vaccination window shift.
By now, it is widely known that a dose of the vaccine increases your risk of getting COVID in the days after injection, but they are not counted as vaccinated and infected.
As usual, I don't fully understand your article, but I wanted to suggest that comparing Pfizer to Moderna might be the way to answer questions about side effects. Pfizer and Moderna were sold to the public as being identical, and a lot of people didn't get a choice between them either. Therefore there might be no differences behaviorally or medically between recipients of Pfizer and Moderna. If there is a higher all-cause death rate among Moderna recipients then we would know that Moderna is worse than Pfizer. We wouldn't necessarily know that Moderna is worse than placebo, but it is a start.
I don't know that the data is solid enough to say for sure that the unvaxxed had higher infection rates than those who got boosted. Especially given we know that after a dose in the primary series infection rates increase in the first 2 weeks due to a temporary immune suppression. Plus we also know that not all infections are confirmed by testing and those who are unvaxxed are perhaps less likely to be tested (except during the height of mandates in late 2021)
Also, a greater number of those getting boosters were in densely populated urban areas which tend to be more liberal meaning they had a higher risk of exposure than the more vaccine resistant conservative folks living in more suburban or rural areas
I still think its a safe bet that pretty much everyone was exposed to COVID before boosting began, even those in non-urban areas
I am still open to the catch up hypothesis with better data but I do believe the vaccines are harming immune systems and increasing infections of all types, so maybe I am biased
Sigh. My head hurts. It’s becoming abundantly clear that I need an ‘Article Translator Device/App’ installed on one of my devices to turn heavy semantic domain statistical info into plain English! Otherwise known as the idiots guide to understanding the writings of Brian. 😅
Unvaxxed. Still haven't gotten it, as far as I know (29yo, male. never tested). Apparently XBB.1.5 or whatever is going to infect everyone. At least that's what John Campbell said recently "It's going to infect everyone..."
However, if it's nothing more than a runny nose and minor cough, I doubt I'll ever realize it. I have a dust mite allergy (random runny nose) and I also smoke tobacco pipe (random cough).
Really, if it is nothing more than a common cold at this point, I just might want to get it. Could provide some level of immunity in case a "serious variant" mysteriously pops up, surely "from an animal reservoir" I'm sure they'll say.
Biden just lengthened the emergency. Yep, we're still in an emergency... after he said "the pandemic is over."
What is the actual non-elderly infection fatality rate now? Like 1 in a million?
Thing is, does the infection catch-up in the vaxxed and boosted elderly precipitate poor health outcomes both at the time of infection and afterwards? It could certainly help explain the 16% rise in UK disabled which doesn't seem to have affected the working age population so much.
This paper from Maxime Taquet a while back suggests that long covid outcomes are similar for breakthough infections:
Now he rightly points out that vaxx reduces the risk of infection in the first place, but if all it does is displace it sometime into the future, what happens then?
Edited to add:
Seems that other papers back this up, eg this one from Ziyad Al-Aly et al:
It concludes 'Altogether, the findings suggest that vaccination before infection confers only partial protection in the post-acute phase of the disease...'
Next question is, how does a dollop of IGg4 tolerance play into this?
If we assume that your claim that a lot of people have not actually been infected by SARS-CoV-2 or one of its many scariants which is driving the increase in infections among the vaxxed and boosted to the hilt crowd, then ...
It could be that the excess mortality is a result of those people, especially the older ones dying from those infections. After all, even rhinoviruses can kill older people and those with a weak immune system.
How would we determine whether any excess mortality is a result of SARS-CoV-2's spike protein (and it's many scariants) or as a result of the enormous numbers of Spike proteins caused by the #ClotShot or because they watched too much TV about how dangerous the scariants are and just up and died suddenly?
'readers better appraised of reality'
That should probably be 'apprised'.
Am I understanding this correctly. What you are suggesting is that the effect may well be that large numbers of the vaccinated had not actually been exposed to whatever scariant of concern they were looking at prior to being vaccinated, and so the effect could simply be that they did not have immunity.
I do not know if I have ever had any of the scariants because I have never bothered being tested and I have never had the ClotShots either.
The Peters "Died Suddenly" feels like controlled opposition with an attempt at Google washing the results. Ha
The MSM avoiding the topic while scientists are desperately (sub or consciously) trying to cover their asses by finding an excuse (long covid) that reduce their shame in pushing these untested products on 5 billion people.
I seem to rememeber in 2020, all strokes, clots, and heart attacks were all covid related. Haven't looked back at that Fear Porn data but that was my first "ohhhh wait a minute moment."
Thanks again Brian for the stimulating chat!
So the reason the MSM has been pushing so many explanations for these sudden deaths and health issues other than long covid, being it looks bad for the vaccines that were supposed to stop infection, then at least reduce symtpoms, and final Hail Mary of reducing Long Covid?
Even living in what appears to be a Post Modernist hellscape with "truth teams", blaming Long Covid (which has yet to be defined, has overlap with vaccine injuries, probably related to that pesky spike protein factory called your internal organs) seems like what the Blue Team? would be using as cover, but doesnt appear to be what is being done from keeping an eye on the MSM garbage. Maybe this is a product of Big Pharma advertising dollars or they are just waiting for the "Long Covid vaccine"? Pfizer has that new heart tissue repair mrna vaccine coming out.......
I admit I dont follow the Long Covid studies. Maybe its just my take on the world, but studies relating to pharmaceutical products tend to get their funding from sources with incentives to get results that paint their industry in the best light. They have their conclusions, just gotta design that study. If it doesnt work out, bury it.
My friend works for DOD contractor who won a bid proposal to use machine learning with a prepared NIH dataset. They were told to design a model that will show the covid vaccines reduce long covid. The company with the best model that shows less long covid with the vaccinated, will win more funding and continue the project.
Some people will never believe these vaccines are dangerous and a terrible idea no matter what studies are published.
Demanding receipts is good. People will still be told not to believe their lying eyes.
Sorry Brian! After 3 years, I am experiencing peak skepticism.
Hmm....after reading so many of your Substacks, "Statistics Lie" and all that....I wonder why even bother with this? Just seem to be explaining away results of anything and everything.
As for "Everything is catch up effect", out of all the people I know and have discussed this with (lets say 100 people),
I can name maybe 3 people who didnt already have covid before their initial booster. They mostly likely had covid before but didnt test (many of my vaccinated friends in 2021 believed they couldn't get covid so no need to test) or had been hiding in their homes and had no children.
Max anecdote is friend with 5 doses and had covid 4 times.
Maybe I am missing something here.
Good stuff, as usual, Brian.
I've been reading and analyzing your recent "catch-up effect" posts. Based upon the studies you've analyzed and the arguments you've made, I'm convinced of what you're saying (by in large). However, it does seem that the vaccines do have some sort of "negative efficacy," especially among the boostered. And the evidence for that is my anecdotal observations: the vaccinated (many of whom previously had Covid) are the ones who got really sick during these past few variant waves over the past few months; whereas the unvaccinated have been fine (worse case scenario: scratchy throat or slight congestion).
In other words, there is no "catch-up effect" going on with the vaccinated I know: not only did Covid already get them, it got them a second (or third) time. What is more, the severity of their subsequent infection was worse than the first time.
In short, your "catch-up effect" theory/model makes sense and is likely to be valid. Yet, it's not comporting with what I'm seeing in my circles.
I think you have a typo here: "The reason I am careful with these kind of small details is that studies lie."
Did you mean "statistics lie" instead of "studies lie" ?
How can anyone take a study seriously that still does the vaccination window shift.
By now, it is widely known that a dose of the vaccine increases your risk of getting COVID in the days after injection, but they are not counted as vaccinated and infected.
Daaaaaamn son. I'm taking my Fisher-Price basketball hoop and unsubscribing.
(just kidding I'm not)
As usual, I don't fully understand your article, but I wanted to suggest that comparing Pfizer to Moderna might be the way to answer questions about side effects. Pfizer and Moderna were sold to the public as being identical, and a lot of people didn't get a choice between them either. Therefore there might be no differences behaviorally or medically between recipients of Pfizer and Moderna. If there is a higher all-cause death rate among Moderna recipients then we would know that Moderna is worse than Pfizer. We wouldn't necessarily know that Moderna is worse than placebo, but it is a start.
All I can say is that I am pleased when I read that the boosted are being hospitalized and dying from Covid.
I get to indulge my Inner Shad.
I don't know that the data is solid enough to say for sure that the unvaxxed had higher infection rates than those who got boosted. Especially given we know that after a dose in the primary series infection rates increase in the first 2 weeks due to a temporary immune suppression. Plus we also know that not all infections are confirmed by testing and those who are unvaxxed are perhaps less likely to be tested (except during the height of mandates in late 2021)
Also, a greater number of those getting boosters were in densely populated urban areas which tend to be more liberal meaning they had a higher risk of exposure than the more vaccine resistant conservative folks living in more suburban or rural areas
I still think its a safe bet that pretty much everyone was exposed to COVID before boosting began, even those in non-urban areas
I am still open to the catch up hypothesis with better data but I do believe the vaccines are harming immune systems and increasing infections of all types, so maybe I am biased
Sigh. My head hurts. It’s becoming abundantly clear that I need an ‘Article Translator Device/App’ installed on one of my devices to turn heavy semantic domain statistical info into plain English! Otherwise known as the idiots guide to understanding the writings of Brian. 😅
Unvaxxed. Still haven't gotten it, as far as I know (29yo, male. never tested). Apparently XBB.1.5 or whatever is going to infect everyone. At least that's what John Campbell said recently "It's going to infect everyone..."
However, if it's nothing more than a runny nose and minor cough, I doubt I'll ever realize it. I have a dust mite allergy (random runny nose) and I also smoke tobacco pipe (random cough).
Really, if it is nothing more than a common cold at this point, I just might want to get it. Could provide some level of immunity in case a "serious variant" mysteriously pops up, surely "from an animal reservoir" I'm sure they'll say.
Biden just lengthened the emergency. Yep, we're still in an emergency... after he said "the pandemic is over."
What is the actual non-elderly infection fatality rate now? Like 1 in a million?
Thing is, does the infection catch-up in the vaxxed and boosted elderly precipitate poor health outcomes both at the time of infection and afterwards? It could certainly help explain the 16% rise in UK disabled which doesn't seem to have affected the working age population so much.
This paper from Maxime Taquet a while back suggests that long covid outcomes are similar for breakthough infections:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013695/
Now he rightly points out that vaxx reduces the risk of infection in the first place, but if all it does is displace it sometime into the future, what happens then?
Edited to add:
Seems that other papers back this up, eg this one from Ziyad Al-Aly et al:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01840-0
It concludes 'Altogether, the findings suggest that vaccination before infection confers only partial protection in the post-acute phase of the disease...'
Next question is, how does a dollop of IGg4 tolerance play into this?